sardia wrote:About the cop that broke into another guy's home and killed himIs it ok to demand cops to give equal treatment when charged when equal treatment is typically really shitty? Is the interim goal of equal treatment a good idea because once powerful people face shoddy treatment, they'll be motivated to change it for everyone?

That can be a motivation, true. Even if not, though, I think it's just in this case.

I see no reason to presume that she is deserving of a higher standard in any respect. This didn't result from her employment responsibilities. She merely happens to be a cop. Giving her a better presumption of innocence than anyone else is simply treating cops as a higher class of people, not making allowances for their job. So, even if one presumes that such allowances are necessary, they ought not apply here.

sardia wrote:About the cop that broke into another guy's home and killed himIs it ok to demand cops to give equal treatment when charged when equal treatment is typically really shitty? Is the interim goal of equal treatment a good idea because once powerful people face shoddy treatment, they'll be motivated to change it for everyone?

As Angua said above, these are two separate issues. That being said: It's remarkable how people in positions of power will push for laws that punish those not in power, then have the gall to demand an exception be made when those very same laws punish them.

The justice system in the US is a cruel, abhorrent cycle of abuse that destroys human life for political expediency and sheer petty spite. I don't support its violence, and I'd rather not perpetuate its fetishistic pursuit of punishment and degradation over rehabilitation and reconciliation. But when police and other officers of the law demand they be exempt from the very monster they've helped build, maintain, and steer? Pardon me if I don't trip over myself in my rush to support them.

Sure, they tend to be fairly solid, but that doesn't mean the person inside is any less vulnerable to flooding. That depends largely on location, drainage, etc, and concrete tends to be pretty impermeable. So, basically, it comes down to how fortunate you are and exactly where the hurricane hits. Might get lucky, might get flooded.

sardia wrote:About the cop that broke into another guy's home and killed himIs it ok to demand cops to give equal treatment when charged when equal treatment is typically really shitty? Is the interim goal of equal treatment a good idea because once powerful people face shoddy treatment, they'll be motivated to change it for everyone?

As Angua said above, these are two separate issues. That being said: It's remarkable how people in positions of power will push for laws that punish those not in power, then have the gall to demand an exception be made when those very same laws punish them.

The justice system in the US is a cruel, abhorrent cycle of abuse that destroys human life for political expediency and sheer petty spite. I don't support its violence, and I'd rather not perpetuate its fetishistic pursuit of punishment and degradation over rehabilitation and reconciliation. But when police and other officers of the law demand they be exempt from the very monster they've helped build, maintain, and steer? Pardon me if I don't trip over myself in my rush to support them.

Amen.

Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.Some of us see The Gutter.Some of us see The Stars.by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Cops got the address wrong and busted in someone's door and started shooting. The owner, who was asleep until the forced entry woke him and had his daughter in the house with him, shot the first two officers reflexively before realizing they were cops. He then surrendered, and he's apparently still alright, and police are taking responsibility and indicating that they will not charge him.

But that's the probability of a random resident being black male, not the probability of a random resident being black male given that the police apologized to him and admitted responsibility for the incident after he shot two cops.

In the event that he's white, while it does show progress on the part of the police, it's still going to cause some not unjustified resentment in the black community.

In the event that he's black (or hispanic, etc), while not proof that racism is a thing of the past it would show an incredible amount of progress and also show that, sometimes, rarely, society will throw a bone to the black community.It'd also be... extremely ironic that it happened under Trump, the most blatantly racist creature to slither into office in modern history, whereas all the events that triggered the BLM movement were on Obama's watch...

It's also highly likely that at least one of the officers was a minority. That maybe helps. Little less us v them, yknow? But yeah, a good sign either way, and perhaps a particularly good sign when it comes to racism, at least for this area. I make no guarantees about the more redneck deep south. Will have to wait and see, I suppose.

It's also highly likely that at least one of the officers was a minority. That maybe helps. Little less us v them, yknow? But yeah, a good sign either way, and perhaps a particularly good sign when it comes to racism, at least for this area. I make no guarantees about the more redneck deep south. Will have to wait and see, I suppose.

Until minority numbers reach a certain threshold, minorities will emulate white people's behaviors in an attempt to fit in. You can't just have a token minorities. Needs to be substantial, and in positions of power. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... nR&ampcf=1

It's also highly likely that at least one of the officers was a minority. That maybe helps. Little less us v them, yknow? But yeah, a good sign either way, and perhaps a particularly good sign when it comes to racism, at least for this area. I make no guarantees about the more redneck deep south. Will have to wait and see, I suppose.

Until minority numbers reach a certain threshold, minorities will emulate white people's behaviors in an attempt to fit in. You can't just have a token minorities. Needs to be substantial, and in positions of power. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... nR&ampcf=1

Texas has decided to deny dentures to a toothless man in prison on the basis of having a blender. The authorities claim "our ability to provide that mechanically blended diet is actually a better solution than the mastication and chewing process."

Well fuck me, why I have I been chewing my own food like a savage all this time, then?

CorruptUser wrote:I dont think prisons in most states offer dentures. My guess is that it is part of the policy of trying to discourage homeless people from using the prisons for shelter/food/medical care.

Maybe they should try, I dunno, providing homeless people with those things outside of prison, then there wouldn't be a demand that needed to be curbed (outrage directed entirely at those who enact such inhumane policies, not at you CU).

Whatever the motivation, it seems pretty clear that the prison authorities believe that it is in their interest to keep him toothless.

As for providing things to the homeless, the standard narrative is that making unemployment suck less constitutes a perverse disincentive for seeking employment—“we have to keep them desperate, or else they might choose not to work”. And if unemployment seems tolerable, then the workers might discover the courage to go on strike...

Problem is the prison system shouldn't be used as a provider of 'last resort healthcare', so the only thing the prisons can do is have a policy of not providing healthcare. The people running the prisons can't set labor policy to make services available outside of the prisons, and the people setting labor policy overall subscribe to the idea that prisons are warehouses of punishment, so lousy healthcare decisions by the prisons suit their image of what a prison should be (and leave more money in the treasury to grift in to their own pockets..err... save the taxpayers money)

We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

ijuin wrote:It’s more likely that the prison management believes that, by keeping him toothless, they are keeping him from having the ability to bite staff or other prisoners.

Or just apathy. It doesn't seem to be specific to this chap, but a general problem with prisons in the area, he's simply happens to be the most affected. Used to be a program in which inmates made dentures for themselves, but that was canceled a coupla years back, and no replacement appears to have been put in place.

CorruptUser wrote:I dont think prisons in most states offer dentures. My guess is that it is part of the policy of trying to discourage homeless people from using the prisons for shelter/food/medical care.

I mean, shelter and food are a given, yes? Unless I've missed some grave change, if society locks you up, they ought to be responsible for your maintenance and basic needs. Hell, some of these teeth were not lost until in prison, being pulled by the prison dentist. From an incentive perspective, that doesn't seem like it's a big deal. It seems unlikely that a homeless person will choose to go to prison anticipating future dental problems. Anyone with that low of a value on personal freedom would probably choose prison for the more immediate payoff of food/shelter. Prison's not a particularly great source of rapid medical/dental care.

I'm not gonna advocate for a gourmet diet, but I think "reasonable cafeteria level" is fine. Enough to maintain everyone in suitable health(even if they have allergies or health conditions that limit diets). It doesn't have to be amazing, or offer tons of choices, but on a health basis, it ought to be solid.

I don't think it's particularly reasonable to claim that tossing whatever in a blender is superior to a traditional diet on medical grounds. A liquid diet in general is only used if a regular diet cannot be, and the standard of "food we're serving today, in a blender" is a particularly halfassed form of doing it.

BBC just published an article on police abuse and disabled people. It makes a good case for a service dedicated to mental health emergencies, like how ambulances are specifically for physical health emergencies. Additional training for police officers is always a good thing too.